Settled Science Now Unsettled

July 13, 2012 | Filed under Global Warming,Science | Posted by Doug Johnson

No we’re not talking about global climate change (formerly global warming), but rather the first colonizers of North America. Archaeologists had accepted as settled fact that Clovis people were the true native Americans. Well it turns out that’s not the case. From The Register:

The so-called “Clovis First” theory had until 2008 been accepted as unquestioned truth among archaeologists, who considered that the Clovis people – so called from 13,000 year old archaeological finds near the village of Clovis in New Mexico – were the true native Americans. When the still more ancient 14,000-year-old excrement was found at the Paisley [Oregon] caves, it was pointed out by disgruntled boffins that no stone tools or other evidence of the type seen at Clovis had been found, and that the DNA poo evidence could have been erroneous.
Dr Dennis Jenkins of Copenhagen uni was having none of that, however, and he continued to poke about in the caves. Now he and his team are back, this time packing stone artifacts including “Western stemmed” stone projectiles and new, more comprehensive DNA dating.
The new study refutes every one of the critics’ arguments and uses overwhelming archaeological, stratigraphic, DNA and radiocarbon evidence to conclusively state that humans — and ones totally unrelated to Clovis peoples — were present at Paisley Caves over a millennium before Clovis.

Don’t you hate it when settled science won’t stay settled?

Image: University of Oregon Archaeological Field School

Shortlink:

Posted by Doug Johnson on July 13, 2012.
Filed under Global Warming, Science.
Doug Johnson is a news junkie and long time blog reader, turned author.

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

Guest
But… but… Sarah Palin says man walked the earth with dinosaurs just 6000 years ago.
Soon after Sarah Palin was elected mayor of the foothill town of
Wasilla, Alaska, she startled a local music teacher by insisting in
casual conversation that men and dinosaurs coexisted on an Earth created
6,000 years ago — about 65 million years after scientists say most
dinosaurs became extinct.”
Which is it? Is Palin wrong? OMG, you’re kidding….
- jim_m
  Yes, young earth creationism is every bit as silly a religious dogma as global warmism. Thanks for pointing that out.
  - Guest
    Yeah, everyone knows global warming is a hoax. Just ask any moron, right jim?
    - jim_m
      Well if I ask our resident moron, you will say that it is real and then point to a non-scientific USA today story that claims that weather is climate.
      Meanwhile the rest of us can point to actual scientific data presenting the fact that global warming is only so much enviro extremist BS. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/09/this-is-what-global-cooling-really-looks-like/
    - jim_m
      Or we could quote the past week’s article from Nature Climate:
      Lead author Professor Dr Jan Esper of Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz said: ‘We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low.
      ‘This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant,
      however it is not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1 deg C.’
      In general the scientists found a slow cooling of 0.6C over 2,000 years, which they attributed to changes in the Earth’s orbit which took it further away from the Sun. The study is published in Nature Climate Change.
      It is based on measurements stretching back to 138BC. The finding may force scientists to rethink current theories of the impact of global warming Professor Esper’s group at the Institute of Geography at JGU used tree-ring density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees originating from Finnish Lapland to produce a reconstruction reaching back to 138 BC.
      In so doing, the researchers have been able for the first time to precisely demonstrate that the long-term trend over the past two millennia has been towards climatic cooling.
    - http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves
      DERP!
      WARMIST!
      DERP!
    - Vagabond661
      Wait are you saying that temperatures go UP in the summer? Man that is page one. Stop the presses!!
- GarandFan
  “Close sources” say that Grumpy is a pedophile. In other news, President Obama says ‘the economy is doing just fine!”
  - jim_m
    We have no way of knowing whether or not Grumpy is a pedophile. Until he comes clean with the evidence we must assume that he is guilty.
    - Guest
      Show me the SEC forms where I said I was CEO and collected $100,000 in salary each year — so I can deny that I was an employee.
      Then I’ll do it again for a second and third year. Exact same scenario — SEC forms say he’s CEO – salary says he’s CEO – and yet, he decides to lie and say he isn’t.
      All the while he’s refusing to release his back tax returns in a manner that is Presidential.
      Cause he knows he’ll be caught in more lies.
      Lie like a MF — THEN you are presidential material, at least for the right.
      After all, would you rather have grandpa and silly sarah back on the bus?
      - jim_m
        DERP!!
        Grumpy is stripping his gears now,
      - 914
        “All the while he’s refusing to release his back tax returns in a manner that is Presidential.”
        Maybe he’s waiting for your hero to release his transcripts from college? Or maybe he just don’t give a shit like Me?
        Either way your stuck with yo own dam ass self!
      - Vagabond661
        Man I don’t see how you can criticize Sarah Palin when you got Biden.
      - Guest
        I know, that’s the funniest part. Many of you haven’t a clue has to just how stupid Sarah Palin is…
      - jim_m
        Says the tool who falls for internet hoaxes and assumes that they are real news.
      - Sky__Captain
        We certainly have ample evidence just how stupid Grumpy is.
      - http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves
        Dumber than a box of rocks.
      - Richard Easbey
        Wow. What a hate-filled little troll you are. Also: ignorant.
      - Jwb10001
        Show where this thread is about Bain Capital or STFU
      - retired.military
        ”
        After all, would you rather have grandpa and silly sarah back on the bus?”
        They couldnt do any worse than Obama that is for sure.
  - retired.military
    Hell Garand I was told that by the source. Mr Chickenshit himself.
- http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves
  DERP!
  DERP!
- http://opinion.ak4mc.us/ McGehee
  I’ll take “Epic Threadjack Fail” for $1,500, Alex.
- Vagabond661
  Maybe this will help: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_Sarah_Palin_believe_that_dinosaurs_were_alive_4000_years_ago
  - jim_m
    Grumpy falls for internet hoax, thinks it’s news. HA!
  - jim_m
    Grumpy falls for internet hoax, thinks it’s news. HA!
- Vagabond661
  Maybe this will help: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_Sarah_Palin_believe_that_dinosaurs_were_alive_4000_years_ago
- The_Weege_99
  Grumps, the only problem with that “fact” is that it was claimed by a known Palin-hater and it has not been corroborated by a single other person. Those kinds of “stories” are the ones you need to be skeptical about, when the actual person has been in the news for years, yet has not said a single thing resembling the alleged quote, and not a single other person can be found to corroborate that they’ve said it. I was skeptical. about the Birther stuff, investigated it and found it lacking. Just like Jay Tea. I consider it appropriate and intelligent to approach all political claims with skepticism, and find the actual source of the claim, then seek corroboration. You have no such approach, it appears.
  - Guest
    Certainly is believable, that something like that came out of Palin’s pie hole.
    And that’s why it’s still alive and well. It’s hard to not believe Sarah Palin said something like that – she’s just so plain stupid.
    - jim_m
      Keep digging dirtbag. You bought into a lie because you are a bigot and it’s kept alive because there are lots of people just like you on the left (ie stupid and prejudiced).
    - Jwb10001
      NOT ABOUT SARAH PALIN! go back to your 57th state and get on your damn breathalizer.
- Jwb10001
  But but but this thread isn’t about Sarah Palin STICK TO THE SUBJECT..
- retired.military
  Well Mr Chickenshit
  Obama told me the same thing.
  See here we have 2 antedotal pieces of evidence with no proof of either.
Hank_M
Oh oh.
Elizabeth Warren isn’t going to like this.
GarandFan
Nice thing about “honest” science is that they share what they have. When challenged by others, they provide additional information, backing their ideas. Other $cientists throw a hissy fit, refuse to share data, try to block publication of opposing data, and proclaim the debate has been “settled”.
- herddog505
  GarandFan – Nice thing about “honest” science is that they share what they have.
  Exactly. To borrow from the movie “Fat Man and Little Boy”:
  These kids are used to pinning their best ideas on a board.*
  Scientists tend to be proud people; they (we?) enjoy discovery, being the first, getting the proof, etc., and the notoriety that comes with it. Yeah, it blows to find out that one is wrong, that one’s work has been invalidated or even criticized, but that’s how the game is played.
  ===
  “Fat Man and Little Boy” (1989)
  dir. Roland Joffe’
  spoken by Dwight Shultz
914
“Don’t you hate it when settled science won’t stay settled”
Yea! Kinda like wherever Albert T lipperlock Gore goes a blizzard is right behind!
- http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson
  Even in the summer.
  Man caused a blizzard once in Florida in July…
  Went down to Panama, they had to bring ice-breakers in to get the locks working again.
  Went to the Sahara desert – penguins took advantage of the cold he brought and swarmed north, then polar bears swarmed south. They brought Coke, and smiled at the new snack foods they found.
ryan a
“No we’re not talking about global climate change (formerly global
warming), but rather the first colonizers of North America.
Archaeologists had accepted as settled fact that Clovis people were the
true native Americans.”
Absolutely wrong. While *some* archaeologists argue for the Clovis first theory, this is by no means settled science. It is, in fact, a subject that generates tremendous debate among archaeologists.
Just ask Tom Dillehay about Monte Verde:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Verde
Or look into the work of James Adovasio at the Meadowcroft rockshelter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Adovasio
Or just read the first paragraph of the wiki article about this (which is good enough):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peopling_of_the_Americas
I understand the fact that you were trying to make a point about supposedly “settled science,” but you picked the wrong example.
- jim_m
  Of course people understood that Clovis wasn’t here first . After all he wasn’t born until 466 and nobody claims that the native Americans spoke French! Sheesh!
  /sarcasm.
  - ryan a
    See, even more evidence against Clovis. Good work jim.
    - jim_m
      As Clovis would have said, “Avec plaisir!”
      - ryan a
        As that guy in Inglorious Bastards said: Grazie
- http://opinion.ak4mc.us/ McGehee
  I’ll take “Deliberately Missing the Point” for $2,000, Alex.
  - ryan a
    I’ll take “I didn’t actually read your whole comment” for $5,000, Alex.
    Hey pal, did you read this: “I understand the fact that you were trying to make a point about supposedly “settled science,” but you picked the wrong example.”
    See? Me get point. Point not complicated.
    Next time, try reading before making a dumb comment.
    - Guest
      lol… I train them to react first – then when they act like asses, they’ll go back and read what they commented on.
      Look how well it works on jim.
    - http://opinion.ak4mc.us/ McGehee
      You were correct that the science about Clovis was never settled.
      That was, however, the point of the post. Clovis is a perfect example.
      - ryan a
        Ok, I see where you are going.
        But here’s my point: unlike the whole global warming debate, in which there are large groups of scientists claiming that the science is “settled,” in the case of the whole peopling of the Americas debate, legions of archaeologists are not and have not argued that the debate is anywhere near settled. Yes, there have been dominant theories, and there are folks who want to claim that it’s settled, but overall most archaeologists acknowledge that much of this is still an open question. That’s my point. It would work as an example if, as the author of the Register piece says, the Clovis theory was somehow completely unquestioned. This is definitely not the case–and that’s why I gave two examples of very well known (ok, within archaeology) archaeologists who have been challenging the Clovis thing for years and years.
      - herddog505
        ryan_a – [U]nlike the whole global warming debate, in which there are large groups of scientists claiming that the science is “settled,” in the case of the whole peopling of the Americas debate, legions of archaeologists are not and have not argued that the debate is anywhere near settled.
        That’s because they are actual scientists and not a bunch of frauds and grifters using “science” for power and profit.
      - ryan a
        Ok, well, now you’re going off point and into AGW, which is another issue. The main point here is that this post really, really gets it wrong when it comes to archaeology and Clovis. Bad example.
      - http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson
        But he gets it right when it comes to the fact that science is rarely ‘settled’. There’s almost always something new to find, and reexamining old data can lead to new insights.
        And it’s usually when scientists think there’s little else to find that suddenly something completely new opens up.
        (Ever hear the joke about why academic infighting is so fierce? Because the stakes are so very small… It’s actually rather amusing – but what if the theories pushed carry with them the possibility of getting a hefty research grant?)
        You still in Mexico, or have you escaped yet?
      - ryan a
        “But he gets it right when it comes to the fact that science is rarely
        ‘settled’. There’s almost always something new to find, and reexamining
        old data can lead to new insights.”
        Ya, agreed. Science is not absolute–I agree with that completely. There is always something new to find. At the same time, however, just because science is rarely completely settled does not mean that we can just ignore strong evidence that points to certain conclusions.
        “And it’s usually when scientists think there’s little else to find that suddenly something completely new opens up.”
        Yep. That’s why people need to remain open, and they need to keep checking and re-checking conclusions.
        “…but what if the theories pushed carry with them the possibility of getting a hefty research grant?”
        Many aspects of science, no matter how supposedly objective, have political implications. It’s just the name of the game.
        “You still in Mexico, or have you escaped yet?”
        Still here. It’s hot, and getting hotter. But going well. Interesting to be here for the elections. Where I’m at, most folks are just glad PAN is gone and hoping that PRI won’t go back to its old ways.
      - http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson
        ”
        Ya, agreed. Science is not absolute–I agree with that completely. There is always something new to find. At the same time, however, just because science is rarely completely settled does not mean that we can just ignore strong evidence that points to certain conclusions.”
        Piltdown Man ring a bell? They had hard evidence – it was just fraudulent. Took close to 40 years to debunk that one.
        Glad to hear you’re okay. Stay hydrated, friend!
      - ryan a
        YES! Piltdown is a good case study of why it’s always good to remain skeptical. Have you ever read Stephen Jay Gould’s writings about that whole fiasco? Good stuff.
        Ya man, all is well here in Mex. The hydration situation is all good, thanks to the folks who make powdered gatorade!
      - http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson
        I remember being taught it in 5th grade science, of all places. Mrs. Brockmuller was a great teacher, and a stickler for scientific integrity, and told us the Piltdown story one day as an example.
        Guess that would have been back in ’67. We thought she was ancient – she’d actually met Edison as a kid!
- herddog505
  I expect that some of the people on either side of the debate consider the science “settled”… in favor of their position, naturally.
  And that’s really the point: the gorebots have been flinging the phrase “the science is settled” for years when, in reality, damned little is EVER settled in science.
  - ryan a
    “I expect that some of the people on either side of the debate consider
    the science “settled”… in favor of their position, naturally.”
    Ya, well in this case the science was never settled in the way that Doug or the Register author implied. The Clovis first theory is by no means some unquestioned truth among archaeologists. It’s a bad example for his point, that’s all.
    “…in reality, damned little is EVER settled in science.”
    Well, that’s how science works. It’s a continual process, not a search for absolutes.
    - herddog505
      ryan_a – [I]n this case the science was never settled in the way that Doug or the Register author implied.
      If Wiki is any guide, it apparently was:
      Known as “Clovis First”, the predominant hypothesis among archaeologists in the latter half of the 20th century had been that the people associated with the Clovis culture were the first inhabitants of the Americas. The primary support for this was that no solid evidence of pre-Clovis human inhabitation had been found.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_theory
      I suggest that the principle difference between AGW and the Clovis Theory isn’t that the latter wasn’t widely accepted, but rather that there simply wasn’t much controversy about it: the Clovis theory was accepted simply because there was no evidence supporting a competing theory until the past couple of decades. In contrast, the evidence for AGW (if one can call the shell games, fabrications, and general rubbish underlying AGW “evidence”) is subject to tremendous criticism; it is only accepted by some very vocal scientists and their supporters / enablers in government and MiniTru.
      At any rate, my point isn’t to quibble over Elizabeth Warren’s ancestry or even AGW, but rather to repeat the basic point (and I think we agree) that, contra the gorebots, little is ever “settled” in science.
      - ryan a
        “If Wiki is any guide, it apparently was:”
        No, it was never settled science. Go read further down the page for well-documented evidence of pre-Clovis archaeological sites:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_culture#Evidence_of_human_habitation_before_Clovis
        There is a big difference between a dominant theory and something being a completely settled matter. There have always been all kinds of debates and arguments about this issue. I provided links to the work of Dillehay and Adovasio as cases in point–they worked on two quite well known sites that pre-date Clovis. With all due respect, calling this issue “settled” is flat out wrong.
        “I suggest that the principle difference between AGW and the Clovis
        Theory isn’t that the latter wasn’t widely accepted, but rather that
        there simply wasn’t much controversy about it…”
        No, not true. There has been plenty of debate and controversy about the whole “Clovis first” argument. Any good intro to archaeology text will get into that issue.
        “…but rather to repeat the basic point (and I think we agree) that, contra the gorebots, little is ever “settled” in science.”
        First off, I am not trying to move from this misleading post into some mega discussion about AGW. Second, I already mentioned that science is a process, rather than a search for absolutes. That said, if we go down the road you are heading, then everyone can basically write off all scientific evidence that they don’t agree with or like since, as you put it, nothing is ever “settled.” At what point is enough evidence enough for you when it comes to a particular scientific theory? Again, I am not getting into AGW, but talking about scientific evidence and conclusions in general.
      - herddog505
        I take a practical view: a theory is a tool and, like any tool, one uses it when it works better than anything else. The key is that we take a skeptical view: “OK, PROVE to me that it works better than what we have been using.” We have some pretty striking examples of this in history: the change from the terracentric to the heliocentric model of the solar system / universe; Pasteur and the germ theory; quantum mechanics. Are you familiar with The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn? If this sort of thing interests you, I think you will enjoy the book.
- The_Queen_of_France
  My daughter was an archaeology major at Mercyhurst and had several classes with Dr. Adovasio. She learned a lot from him, and some of the stories she related from him were very cool. I had an opportunity to meet and speak with him at a few parents’ weekend events. Nice guy, very passionate about his work and his arguments were very convincing about Meadowcroft.
  In general, archaeologists are a pretty rowdy bunch. They’ll argue for decades over the tiniest details.
  - ryan a
    Wow, now that is cool that you got the chance to meet Adovasio and that your daughter took classes with him. HIs work is really interesting–and from what I hear he is quite passionate about what he does. I haven’t met him, just read his work. But yes, agreed about those archaeos being a rowdy bunch. No doubt about that! Once you get them going about radio carbon dates or stone tool styles, it’s over. I have some good friends who spent most of their waking hours staring at little bits of pottery fragments–thousands and thousands of them. Definitely a discipline for the meticulous, no?
http://www.facebook.com/people/Gary-Steele/1590878567 Gary Steele
This is what i like about science. When confronted with scepticsm, scientists go out and gather more data. Religionists just kill the “unbeliever.”
- http://opinion.ak4mc.us/ McGehee
  Or the “denier.”
- 914
  Or ask and get a government grant to study sex habits of the Mango juju fly!
NelsonTheCat
Not to be too much of an egghead but, the author of the article cited is being intentionally misleading about the level of consensus on the “Clovis” people. I can only assume that it’s for for some misguided political reason. The role of the Clovis culture has never been anything like “settled science” in the way that gravity, evolution, or even global warming are settled. No substantive scientific arguments currently exist that would overturn the basic understanding of gravity, evolution, or even global warming. On the other hand, even the most strident proponents of a “Clovis first” theory have long acknowledged that other peoples may have been on the continent when the Clovis people arrived. Their stance is merely that if those cultures existed, their lines either died our or were wiped out, and they are not the ancestors of modern Native Americans. The revolutionary finding in Oregon is the challenge to that idea.
- herddog505
  NelsonTheCat – No substantive scientific arguments currently exist that would overturn the basic understanding of gravity, evolution, or even global warming.
  Well, two out three ain’t bad, I suppose.
  Or perhaps only one out of three: do we REALLY “understand” how gravity works? We know the phenomenon exists; we understand its effects. But we really have no idea how it works, have we?
  - NelsonTheCat
    Nor do we fully understand the mechanisms of Global warming or evolution. Still, if someone would like to challenge gravity I could suggest some experiments but can’t be held responsible for any unpleasant consequences should gravity prevail. ; )
    The much more important point is that the author of the article is being dishonest with science for political reasons. This should throw into question not only the author’s integrity, but the website as well. It’s one thing to be wrong, it’s another to intentionally mislead.
    - herddog505
      Evolution and gravity are of a piece: we see the evidence; we understand the effects. However, as you say, we don’t really understand HOW they work.
      AGW* is a different kettle of fish. Quite aside from the fact that the “evidence” consists in part of computer models that have never been proved (and some, apparently, are less predictive than a random number generator) and in part of observations that are subject to interpretation at best and outright fabrications at worst, the gorebots think they KNOW how it works.
      Gravity: we know it exists due to actual observation. We have tested its effects; those tests are repeatable and predictable; we have a mathematical model of gravity that we successfully and repeatedly use for such tasks as building large structures, flight, ballistics, etc.
      AGW: it exists! It exists! It exists because we say so! We’ve got computer models (don’t ask to see the code)! And a lot of people agree with us! And if you disagree, you’re a poo-poo head!
      ===
      (*) Even the name is subject to change. It is usually global warming, but, because the earth has refused to cooperate and has not gotten uniformly, predictably hotter, it’s sometimes “climate change” and even “climate disruption”. When the very name of a theory has to be changed because it’s predictive powers are so terrible, because it matches reality so poorly, it isn’t much of a theory.
retired.military
Well I am sure glad that we spent all those billions on creating jobs in the green energy field.
Except umm oh wait. per Obama the “green ” stimulus dollars were never supposed to be about job creation.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/07/team-obama-backtracks-now-says-billions-spent-on-green-projects-werent-meant-to-create-jobs-video/
LiberalNightmare
You have to be really careful with that DNA poo evidence. You really dont want that stuff on your shirt.
- jim_m
  I don’t believe their conclusions. Their evidence is crap.

Settled Science Now Unsettled

Newsmax Feed

Live Blogroll

Wizbang Pop!

Popular Now

Socialize

Subscribe by Email

About

Ad Networks

Settled Science Now Unsettled

Share this:

Newsmax Feed

Live Blogroll

Wizbang Pop!

Popular Now

Socialize

Subscribe by Email

About

Ad Networks